If the science community,scientists and evolutionists in particular, found evidence contrary to evolution so?

Question

that the theory of evolution came crashing down around them, Do you honestly believe they would make light of it and let everyone know? It going to happen you know, just had another change in theory mentioned today on Yahoo News, breaking their line of evolution and making them rethink things.

Answer 1

"If the science community,scientists and evolutionists in particular, found evidence contrary to evolution so that the theory of evolution came crashing down around them, Do you honestly believe they would make light of it and let everyone know?"

Not only have similar things happened in the past (such as when the Big Bang first came up, and eventually replaced steady-state theories), but the person who finds evidence that completely overturns evolution will definitely win at least one (possibly several) Nobel Prize(s), and lifelong fame and fortune. In science, you get FAR more accolades, awards, and recognition for showing that something is wrong (or discovering something brand new), than for re-confirming what's already been confirmed.

"It going to happen you know, just had another change in theory mentioned today on Yahoo News, breaking their line of evolution and making them rethink things."

Uh, no, one detail about WHEN certain evolution occurred was challenged. The fact that evolution occurs was not disturbed whatsoever by the new findings. The article itself says:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion DOESN'T do. It's a continous self-testing process." --http://tinyurl.com/ywrp89 (emphasis added)

Answer 2

You really don't get this whole science thing do you? You are definately confusing it with that thing you do, religion. If we came up with a theory that replaced evolution, i.e a theory that accounted for how genes inform and construct an entity, a theory that explained how a virus becomes resistant and how bacteria and more complex organisms change (or 'evolve') over time, A theory that explains why we have similiar physical traits to other mammals, why we have a tailbone, why we inherit traits from our parents like eye colour and skin colour, why some of us have the same muscles in our ears that other animals do to allow us to wiggle them, why some of us have a point in our ear exactly the same as many of our monkey 'relatives', if we came across a theory that revolutionised the way we thought about biology, it would be debated, experiments would be done, knowledge consolidated and it would be in high school science textbooks within the next few years, and taught, at least on an introductory level, within the classroom almost immediately.

However, if we do come across a new theory to explain all of this, guaranteed, it's not going to be "a magic invisible man did it"

Answer 3

Yes, I believe they would. Science is constantly searching for new evidence and acquiring knowledge. A change in evolution (such as the exact sequence of which it happened) doesn't mean it's being proven wrong, it's just being tweaked.

Now, if there was something like that would prove the entire theory wrong, I would hope that scientists would then scrap the theory and start anew.

Answer 4

Uh, which means that they DO make their results public, doesn't it?

Even when it means they have to rethink things.

What you don't seem to understand is that scientists want to know stuff, they want to understand.

They didn't go into science to disprove god, they went into science because it helps you understand the world and the universe and how things work.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tells of a professor who had lectured for years -- with great passion -- that some something (sorry, I forget the point he argued).

Then the school had a guest lecturer who gave a talk that made the "something" clearly false.

The professor walked up to the speaker, shook his hand and said "Thank you. I've been getting it wrong for 15 years."

When faced with a compelling argument, he changed his mind.

That's what it's all about.

That each species was not "created" by a creator, but that they developed from earlier forms is very well substantiated.

They're just hammering out the details.

(Wish I knew what story you're referring to; guess I'd better check my favorite science news site!)

Answer 5

How did this news contradict evolution, the theory? Or did the scientist need to rethink how evolution works. You seem to think a theory is carved in stone. It changes and becomes more substantial has the evidence comes in.

Answer 6

this could properly be a real subject---it incredibly is no longer a probability for all of us at present to individually redo all the experiments and observations that variety the muse of our scientific expertise of the international. various the experiments are so high priced that they could't be redone via all of us, much less an fascinated amateur. So, a scientifically-minded guy or woman could believe different scientists, a minimum of to a pair quantity. this could properly be a weak spot interior the scientific technique---it facilitates an out: "I do exactly no longer believe those human beings!" that's exploited via creationists---if scientists could properly be slandered as untrustworthy, badly inspired, or maybe easily evil, then the whole scientific employer could properly be called into question.

Answer 7

OMG Here we go again.

did you read the article? again probably not.

if anything the article is more out of line with creationist thinking than before.

first off the articlc starts with a half truth. the single line of human evolution theory was abandoned almost 100 years ago. this aritcle simply proves that there were several species of humand living on earth at the same time. within walking distance of each other...and they all evolved differantly. and evnetually one rose to the top and became what we are today. it does not change the accepted belief. it supports it. and further shows that humans can evolve rather quickly (within 10,000 years instead of millions.)

Answer 8

The difference is that if evolution was disproved or the theory bettered, they would give you their highest honour. In religion we have seen the bloodshed in suggesting it is wrong. We have 2000 years of terror to prove that.

The article disproves nothing, evolution is a fact, the how may change slightly.

People haven't even been able to prove the history of the bible stories from 4000 years ago and you people squak cause there is no straight line for you to connect the dots to. The bible stories cover 4000 or so years and a few hundred people. Evolution covers 3.5 billion years and billions of different speciaes. Do you see the difference?

Answer 9

Theories, by their nature [and by the expert testimony of RS high school level scientists] evolve with discoveries of new evidence.

Naturally, any scientist welcomes new evidence with an open mind. Each waits hungrily to examine the evidence before forming an opinion. None cling to theories as though they were holy canon.

Answer 10

If valid information is brought forward to sufficiently contradict the theory of evolution, then the -reasonable- people who believe in the theory will surely rethink their views. I don't doubt that it will be terribly awkward for them, though.

Can I have a link to this article?